On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Niall Pemberton > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Attached a patch to: > >> > 1. change from poding.i.a.o to poding.a.o > >> > 2. Require the incubator logo and that it be prominent > > Thanks, Niall. > > For the time being, I'm -1 and going to play devil's advocate, but I'm > willing > to be persuaded. > > > https://paste.apache.org/nQTK > > OK, now the can of worms opens up... > > Compliance with the existing podling website branding requirements is > poor[1]. > >From your review 13 compliant, 13 have 1 Issue, 10 have >1 issue. So I would disagree with the characterization of poor. You could say 72% one issue or less - maybe thats good!! > What good is adding another requirement for people to ignore[2]? > If we want podlings to have incubator branding, then IMO a logo would have far more effect than a URL. But I don't think non-compliance is a good argument against - should be judged on branding criteria > If the website is at `podling.apache.org`, then why not the mailing lists, > too? > > Some podlings find labeling releases "incubating" inconvenient for both > techncical and social reasons. Why not dispense with that requirement as > well? > > Some podlings find the requirement to brand themselves as "incubating" > inconvenient for marketing materials (including the podling website) > because > the public may interpret it as implying an immature codebase. Arguably, it > will help our podlings succeed if we simply stop differentiating them from > TLPs. So why do we distinguish podlings from TLPs at all? > Good points, I won't argue against them and the pTLP route imposes no such branding requirements. All I'm saying is that *if* we're going to impose *incubator* branding, then IMO the url is probably pretty ineffective and not a big change and my proposal to make the incubator logo more prominent would be better from a branding perspective. Having said that, I don't see much point in the *incubator* branding requirement, was just trying to work within the existing policy. > > Finally, to what extent does the Incubator have the responsibility to > involve > other entities at Apache (e.g. Marketing, Brand Management, Board) in > decisions to weaken podling branding requirements? > Yes, I think the brand VP should give an opinion. Presumably there was some involvement when the policy was put in place. > > My perspective on all these questions is that a balance has been struck > between inconvenience to the podling, the right of the the general public > to > know that a podling is incubating (and thus may put out releases that don't > adhere to all aspects of Apache policy, may not have a mature community, > etc.), and the reputatation of the Foundation. And therefore, reducing > inconvenience to the podling, while a worthy goal, is not sufficient > justification on its own to disrupt that balance. > > Better to seek out other ways to reduce podling inconvenience -- e.g. is it > possible to carve out some exception for Geode templates? > Good point. Lets see how this goes. Niall > > Marvin Humphrey > > [1] http://s.apache.org/3NU > [2] This is a tangential point, but I'm not enthused about replacing a > faceless technical mechanism with a policy that requires individuals to > serve as enforcers. I think that injects a negative dynamic into the > community. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
